Hi Rage, I took my time before replying to this message of yours, because I wanted to jump on your side or where you're coming from and try to see it the way you're seeing it. I may have made the same arguments a few years ago when I was deep in the "FOSS is the light" and "FOSS is the right way" paradigm. Now business, money, and reality, make a very good case for making pragmatic assessments at least in my case -- making me shed the "rose tainted glasses" that I know I once wore.
So with that, I continue presenting my opinions regarding your responses. On 9/17/06, Rage Callao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/16/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hmmm... Let's get this straight: you say that making something > mandatory (in this case FOSS) does not remove the right to choose fro > the government. Does that even make sense? Perfectly. The government is free to exercise that right to choose and not just arbitrarily but by an act of Congress which is the case here.
Yes, but the act of Congress is arbitrarily defined by the people who propose the bill. All the laws that congress enacts start with an arbitrary rationale and objective from a partisan representative. Of course, a member of a party will push his/her agenda because that's what they do. And they do this arbitrarily. I had been a junior board member of Laguna, and thank God I saw how it worked: some representative pushes an agenda and writes a bill to propose a course of action which is in line with his agenda. The party will have to decide if the agenda is in line with the party's internal politics or convictions and political positions. Even the E-Commerce act was arbitrarily brought up to push the "agenda for setting standards in the E-Commerce environment of the Philippines" or something to that effect. They set regulations, fines, and modes of acceptable engagement when doing business or behaving online.
> Ah, but the institution you worked for had a choice right? It could > have chosen FOSS or Propreitary software. They set a policy internally > which said "okay, guys and gals, we will use this software.". But the > next day, the higher ups still has the choice to use FOSS, because > nobody took that choice away from them. The institution I worked for made that choice. The government as an institution has that choice as well.
Yes, but saying government will make one choice for every situation is tantamount to removing choice! What I'm saying is, that government should be free to choose on a case to case basis _without preferential bias for a certain party or type of product/service_. The technical requirements and criteria for eligibility should not include any preferential criterion like gender, race, religion -- and in the case of software, type of license. At least, that's how _I_ see how it should be.
> Hmmm... It's requiring every government agency to use FOSS only. Now > if the government agency heads really had the choice, then they could > say "I'm sorry, FOSS doesn't cut it for us so let's use proprietary > software..." but unfortunately, even the government itself is removed > of that choice because _it had already been required to use FOSS > only_. This removes choice on all cases where software will be > procured, because the government will only use FOSS. You see the > difference? The legislation allows for circumstances that necessitate use of non-free software. What is proposed here is to make that an exception rather than the rule as what is currently taking place.
"6.2. Use of FOSS – The government shall apply only FOSS or FOSS solutions, as defined in section 4 of this Act, in all ICT projects and activities; 6.3. Extraordinary circumstances – The following are extraordinary circumstances which may exempt government from using FOSS and open standards: 6.3.1 Where there is no reasonably available ICT good or services supporting open standards in the field, area or activity that the Government intends to enter or participate; or, 6.3.2 Where a particular government agency or office has an existing, widely- used and widely implemented proprietary ICT system and there are no reasonably available technology using open standards that can be used with the said proprietary system." I believe you're talking about these sections, so I felt it necessary to quote them. How I see it, making FOSS "the rule" is essentially problematic because without appropriate study for specific cases a decision is already made. Making non-FOSS alternatives to the main decision only because there is no FOSS equivalent is a big mistake especially if you're taking into consideration real-life case to case basis issues like cost, timeline, and objectives which are external to the technical requirements of the government on a case to case basis.
It is right for the government to choose the terms which are clearly advantageous to it and not simply accept the terms it is being offered.
True, but I beg that this be done on a case to case basis, and not by blanket policy because it's not reallistically beneficial for government for the short and long term. Why? On the short term, you're dealing with migration issues, compatibility issues, performance issues, adoption issues, and deployment issues. You then need to build the required support infrastructure both in-house and through third party VAS providers, which will take an enormous amount of effort and will strain the government's operational capacity. On the long term, you're dealing with maintenance, support, upgade, modification, among other issues which are things that you cannot ignore. All these points above are at the mercy of an army of developers which are not even in the Philippine sovereign territory especially if it's FOSS that you just pull down from the Internet. If in case FOSS is made in the Philippines and used by the Philippine government, maintaining software is not an easy task especially if you've actually tried doing it (and especially if you're not the one who wrote it). It costs lots of money because developer time is not cheap, and the only way we're going to improve the IT industry here in the Philippines is by paying the developers (_us_ developers) the right due -- otherwise, we'll just go to where people will pay us more to do FOSS programming, because that's the pragmatic choice to make.
> If government really had the choice, then on a case to case basis > where software projects are bid on, every software that fulfills the > technical requirements and other contractual requirements have the > same chances of being selected -- now *that* is choice. If government > already has a bias against any type of product based on a > non-technical requirement arbitrarily set due to legislative > preference is tantamount to discrimination. I will say it again: it's > like not choosing an applicant who fits the requirement because she's > a Muslim. The technical requirements should not be the sole basis for the selection of appropriate software. Other requirements must be met whether or not these fall within the realm of technicality. This is what the bill is currently trying to address.
There are two types of requirements: functional and non-functional requirements. Functional requirements involve the technical operations of a solution, while non-functional requirements deal with somewhat external factors that are not directly tied but intimately related to the solution (issues of user interface and ouput designs, scalability, reliability, stability, icon design, and the likes). The software license, is neither a functional nor non-functional requirement: it's merely an expression of the rights granted to the end-user as can be upheld by existing international IP laws. The license to the software is slapped on to the software _by choice_ much like how religion is chosen by people (and people have the right to practice a religion of their choice). The State (in our case, the government) should not discriminate on the basis of gender, race, religion, height, weight, facial features, foot size, and in the case of software the type of license in policies set by congress, especially the ones which affect all agencies. But unfortunately, some people seem to think that giving FOSS preferential treatment is a good thing: while I feel alone in opposing it.
> The policy then should read differently. It should not require the > license to be FOSS, but instead that source code is made available to > the government upon turnover -- regardless of whether the license is > under a FOSS license. I agree that the source code must be made available to the government upon turnover.
Then we agree to some extent.
> So just to clarify, when you mean "free terms", that the software is > not paid for by government? If that's the case, how do you achieve the > goal of establishing an IT industry here in the Philippines by making > government not pay for the software? Free as in freedom.
So Free as in Freedom software will help establish an IT industry here in the Philippines? I'm sorry, I don't see how it does.
> This is PERU again. So let's say that's the case... If the argument applies, it applies wherever you are in the world.
Sorry, but no. The argument applies only to places where the government operates under a democratic process: you can't make the same case in North Korea, Syria, and Iran where the conditions and principles of government are very different from what we have. Even Peru's government is different from ours, and the arguments that apply to our setting may not be the same for them -- and AFAICT, the arguments for their policy don't apply to our government.
> So you mean to say, even if the product was made technically compliant > to whatever technical requirements the government set, then it > wouldn't qualify for bidding even because of a license issue? How fair > does that sound to you? Oh wait, I'm asking the wrong person: you want > government to use FOSS only. It won't qualify not because of the license issue but because it is not as advantageous to the government if it were freely (as in freedom) licensed.
Oh wait... Look at the quoted sections again above. It seems that you're mis-construing the provisions set in the bill with the concept of "advantageous to the government". It clearly shows that any software that's not FOSS will not qualify for bidding for government ICT projects because according to section 6.2, only FOSS will be used for government ICT projects.
> After all : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Peru > > <quote> > The Republic of Peru is in a state of ongoing democratization. Led by > President Alejandro Toledo, the executive branch is attempting to be > transparent and accountable. Previously a rubberstamp body, Peru's > unicameral Congress is emerging as a strong counterbalance to the once > dominant executive branch, with increased oversight and investigative > powers. The executive branch and Congress are attempting to reform the > judicial branch, antiquated and rife with corruption. > > Peruvians, whose expectations were raised during the 2000 and 2001 > election campaigns, are frustrated at the slow pace of economic > recovery and job creation. As discontent rises, the Toledo > administration is in a race to strengthen the economy so that popular > pressures do not force a shift to more radical measures. So far, the > Toledo government remains committed to neoliberal economic policies > and structural reform in the hope of attracting sufficient > international investment to generate growth and job creation. > </quote> Think. We're talking the same things here. The same arguments do apply.
I'm sorry, I beg to differ. It's apples and oranges: Peru is not the Philippines, and the Philippines is not Peru.
> Oh wait, it does: only FOSS. So of course, Windows is out of the > question because of a "non-technical contractual requirement" read: > "bias against proprietary software". Not biased against proprietary software because it does not rule out the use or purchase of proprietary software but merely sets it out as the exception to the rule on what government uses or purchases. There is a difference.
Sorry, there is a difference between "bias against something" and "exception to the rule"?
> Okay, on one hand you're arguing administrative problems such as > "cohesion", "integration", "standardization", "rules and procedures". > Then you go about "data integrity and accesibility" then jump to > "unsustainable cost of government". All valid arguments for the use of FOSS.
But you've conveniently snipped out the section of your comment I was referring to: " Much has also been said about whether or not it is even necessary to have such a policy in place. I argue that it is necessary for the reason I set forth above and in the following. Without a policy on the use of software in government we are in danger of creating critical systems that do not integrate well as a whole. We are at risk that state bodies may use software that is not at par or compatible with what others are using. Without a policy in place, government institutions who have already decided to migrate to FOSS -based solutions are doing so on there on without any guidance whatsoever. Without policy, we cannot rationally set rules and procedures that need to be enforced when implementing FOSS. Without policy, public data is at risk of being inaccessible and impermanent. Without policy, basic services and the government institutions that provide these are going to be crippled by the "unsustainable cost of government". " You're not supporting the point that FOSS should be used by citing the administrative and fiscal issues _you wish_ will be solved by just using only FOSS in government. You're merely saying that the bill is a panacea to set about the rosy ivory tower picture you and other people want to paint when only FOSS is used in government. Microsoft Sales people can also make the same case for using just Microsoft based products in government, so there's nothing really new to what you're saying. You're just using the same argument that the proprietary software people will use to push an agenda. The same points you're using are the same points that make a case for proprietary software, so there's nothing new in that.
> I maintain: the policy should set technical requirements on all > software to be procured by government -- that only standard protocols > and open file formats be used. However, it should not specify that > *only FOSS* will be used. Certainly people can write (and have > written) proprietary software that's good enough for government's > technical requirements but is not under the FOSS license (Safari > browser, Apple's Mac OSX, Microsoft Visio, etc.) -- I personally don't > want government to be restricted to just FOSS like Firefox, Linux, > GNOME and KDE, Dia, etc. The policy should not simply be about meeting the technical requirements but also by the terms which are clearly more advantageous for the government.
Clearly more advantageous for the government? I hardly think "using only FOSS in government" is clearly more advantageous than "using software solutions which fulfill functional and non-functional requirements, which allow for extensions and future modifications, and which use open standard technologies for interoperating with other solutions _regardless of the software license_".
> It's not a secret that there are software firms that don't write FOSS > -- but they should not be excluded from the government's choices > because of a bias for FOSS. Our government doesn't need this bias, and > can set better policies that are less dogmatic about software. The rule is there as well as the exception. If there is a bias, it should be in favor of the government and not the other way around.
The point is that there should be no bias for or against any software based on the type license it comes with.
> Save this speech for the congress... It's like a poetic cry for > support appealing to emotion. I can say this *speech* here. Like you said this is a public forum.
And because it's a public forum and public discussion, we should try to keep it on topic.
> And mind you, it should be the other way around: your objectives > should define your policy. Guidance is required to define policy, > keeping the objectives in mind. I completely disagree. A policy statement on the use of FOSS in government will provide clear roadmaps.
Sorry, but a policy statement should be guided first and foremost by the objectives. Setting policy not aligned with any objectives is a poor way of planning and running government. Roadmaps will come only when the objectives are clear and policies consistent.
> So the objective is to have the government use FOSS and open > standards. Then make policy that requires the use of open standards as > technical requirements in software procurement projects, and come up > with a comprehensive plan for evaluating FOSS and its viability in > government. That is the big picture.
Sorry, but the big picture is not supported by the FOSS bill we've been talking about.
> I believe you're preaching to the choire here. However, proposing a > policy that's anti-choice and anti-freedom is paramount to asking the > Communist Party. Not that there's anything wrong with Communism, it > just doesn't work. Well, some members of this choir are clearly not in tune. I have also proven that this legislation is not discriminatory and is clearly within the sovereign right of the government to make that choice.
I speak for a lot of people when I say that we in the Philippine Linux Users Group are Free/Open Source Software users and advocates (some even contributors). That doesn't mean that we all sing just one song, or for the matter believe in the same ways of promoting FOSS. What you have proven, is only that you can seem to argue and seem to sound convincing. You have not proven that the policy is not discriminatory because of the quoted section 6 already makes it discriminatory. The government has the sovereign right to protect itself from policies that limit choice -- like this FOSS bill -- and unnecessarily favor anything based on partisan agenda. Maybe the president can Veto this bill when it comes to the point of enactment, which gives me an idea...
> I have used the terms Zealot and Fascist to describe this bill, and I > am on topic. It aptly describes properties of the bill which are > totalitarian and adhering to the concept of "command and control" > which removes choice from government -- the last thing I want to > happen. In any case using those terms is offensive to those who do not see things *your* way.
Sorry, but these two terms are objectively defined: zealot -- partisan: a fervent and even militant proponent of something fascist -- an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views [gotten from googling "define: zealot" and "define: fascist" respectively] Which is consistent with how I describe the bill supported by the points that I've been raising. -- Dean Michael C. Berris C++ Software Architect Orange and Bronze Software Labs, Ltd. Co. web: http://software.orangeandbronze.com/ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mobile: +63 928 7291459 phone: +63 2 8943415 other: +1 408 4049532 blogs: http://mikhailberis.blogspot.com http://3w-agility.blogspot.com http://cplusplus-soup.blogspot.com _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
